claude_review_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses timing expectations (2-15 minute reviews), that polling returns elapsed time while running versus the full report when finished, and that cancel kills the process tree and stops billing. It omits retention/lifetime of jobIds and whether a finished job can be re-read, but the operationally important traits are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the tool's role and the reason it exists, then broken out by invocation mode. Every clause conveys distinct operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: elapsed time while running, the full report when finished, and a recent-jobs list without a jobId. That covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it, with only minor gaps such as error behavior for an unknown or expired jobId.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema: the cancel semantics it states essentially restate the schema's own description, and the genuinely new information is the mode where jobId is omitted entirely, which is a behavior rather than added parameter syntax.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll a background review started by claude_code_review') and immediately clarifies why this tool exists separately from its sibling (the review tool returns fast with a jobId because reviews take 2-15 minutes). An agent can distinguish it from claude_code_review without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly enumerates the three invocation modes and what each is for: with jobId to poll, with cancel=true to abort, without jobId to list recent jobs. It also names the sibling that produces the jobId. It stops short of routing to the other siblings (claude_review_followup, claude_review_env), so it is clear but not fully comparative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.